Public administration

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today, the Committee on the Constitution's report KU8 Public Administration is being debated. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal.

The Swedish administrative tradition is very old and has since its inception mandated objectivity and impartiality. Other self-evident values that have emerged in symbiosis with the nation-state and democracy are the Swedish administrative law principles with socially beneficial and purposeful authorities. We do, however, see a clear tendency for authorities to be added whose utility there is reason to question.

Public administration

I want to begin by staying on the topic of official responsibility. A basic thought is that there are deficiencies in the exercise of official duties that are not addressed by current regulations. Minor official errors do not lead to any reprimand. In practice, the error must be considered gross for the official to be held accountable. The deficiency primarily means that distrust towards public administration increases.

Within public administration, corruption constitutes a threat to our democratic system and the trust in the state, municipalities, and regions. Transparency International Sweden, which presents a corruption index, notes that Sweden is sinking and has reached a new low in ten years, with the second worst ranking in the Nordic region.

With the development we are now seeing in Sweden, where organized crime is increasing and infiltration of important societal functions has occurred on several occasions, it is clearly evident that new solutions are required.

Official responsibility is a vital component for addressing mismanagement and corruption within Swedish authorities. It promotes a higher minimum standard that goes hand in hand with the requirements for transparency and accountability.

The Sweden Democrats have reached an agreement with the government in the form of the Tidö Agreement. Included therein is that a proposal shall be presented on how a reintroduced civil servant responsibility could look, with the aim of strengthening measures against official misconduct and expanding the responsibility for other public authority activities.

I note that the government, as a result of this agreement on 5 February 2024, appointed a special investigator who shall review the criminal legislation against corruption and misconduct in office.

Firstly, the investigator shall evaluate the application of the 2012 reform and take a position on whether the criminal legislation is effective and modern or if there is a need for changes, and submit necessary legislative proposals.

Secondly, the investigator shall assess which constitutional changes or other measures are needed to adapt Swedish law to the new EU directive on combating corruption.

For the third, the investigator shall take a position on whether the criminal liability for official misconduct should be expanded and, regardless of the position taken on the merits, submit legislative proposals implying that the liability for official misconduct is expanded to include also actions other than those taken in the exercise of public authority.

The assignment shall be reported by July 25, 2025, at the latest, and we await the investigation's conclusions and proposals with anticipation.

Finally, a few words on the right to an interpreter according to the Administrative Procedure Act. The state's costs for interpreters have increased steadily over many years, and according to an interpreter study, the costs for municipalities and regions alone during the period 2014-2017 increased from 685 million kronor to over 1 billion kronor. With these skyrocketing costs, and above all the lack of a cost ceiling, it is obvious that the situation will become unsustainable in the long run, if it is not already. It is noteworthy that there is a lack of a regulatory framework regarding how long a person in need of an interpreter can be offered such assistance free of charge.

A too generous interpretation of interpretation support delays the integration-promoting objective that one should learn Swedish, and it thus becomes counterproductive. Persons who have received Swedish citizenship should reasonably not be eligible to receive continued interpretation support, because it can be expected of them that they have sufficient knowledge of Swedish to be able to express themselves in both speech and writing. Persons with, for example, severe functional disabilities, with limitations in the ability to see, hear, and speak, who are affected by this regulation should naturally receive continued interpretation support.

An argument that is often overlooked in the discussion is that healthcare personnel or staff at agencies may perceive the interpretation as a disruption in their professional practice. Interpreted conversations often become unnecessarily complicated or take significantly longer than what has been allocated for the purpose. There are therefore clear incentives to ensure a certain minimum level in order to perform interpretation in public administration, especially with qualified work as ordered in court, to give an example.

In addition to these requirements, requirements should also be able to be set regarding knowledge of communication across language and cultural boundaries, that is to say that the interpreter can perform their work in a way that does not constitute an obstacle for the person who has hired the interpreter.

(Applause)

In this speech, Matheus Enholm, Mattias Eriksson Falk and Runar Filper (all SD) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to listen to Lars Andersson's speech on the importance of us having independent civil servants who are professional in their roles.

I am particularly curious about the passage regarding the extended official responsibility. Lars Andersson said that it is to be reintroduced. We have a criminal official responsibility today, and we also have an entire regulation surrounding how officials should act. Officials can lose their employment, and it can also have other consequences if they do not act in accordance with professionalism and the responsibility they have.

I know that the Sweden Democrats, together with the current government, have given directives to an inquiry that this official responsibility should be expanded.

I am quite puzzled by this. An investigation was conducted a few years ago where it was concluded that the negative sides of strengthening the criminal liability would be greater than the potentially positive sides that could be seen. That was what that investigation landed on.

I would very much like to hear a bit more about how Lars Andersson believes that greater criminal liability could make our officials act more professionally and in line with the mandate they have.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Björk for the question.

I think there are deficiencies today. We mostly want to see if it is possible to expand the responsibility in one way or another. As an example, I can mention that between 2009 and 2017, nearly 62,000 reports of official misconduct were made. Only 126 people were prosecuted. The consequence was only fines, and no one has been sentenced to imprisonment during this period. The idea is actually that it should be investigated whether we can expand the responsibility a bit more. Without for that reason hacking too much at the system we have today, we simply just want to expand it and make it a bit more comprehensive.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

I do not share the member's view on this. I am aware that many reports of official misconduct are made. I have worked as a prosecutor myself. I have seen colleagues who have been reported for official misconduct, and I have participated and testified to ensure that judges and also police officers can be convicted of official misconduct. It is those groups that usually are prosecuted, because they are professional groups where there is a very clear regulatory framework.

That is where the criminal liability comes in. In order to be able to prosecute or convict someone, it is required that there is a very clear set of rules to be followed. This means that many other groups do not become relevant for criminal liability because it must then be possible to prove that someone has done something that is completely in conflict with a specific rule.

With this proposal, there is a great risk that many activities will need to be regulated in detail in a way that would not lead to efficient administration, but rather the opposite. This was also what the investigation concluded.

Furthermore, there is a risk that people who today are subject to threats actually do not dare to make decisions, or rather refrain from making decisions. When it comes to criminal liability, it is very difficult to convict someone for an omission. It is rather when one has done something that it becomes relevant to prosecute or convict someone.

I wonder how Lars Andersson views the risk of us getting an inefficient administration with detailed regulations in a way that would not benefit the administration as a whole. And how does he view that people who perhaps are threatened not to take custody of a child might actually refrain from making a decision in order not to risk being reported for misconduct by the person who is threatening?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Andersson (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is naturally a very good point. Threats and hate are never acceptable, which naturally must be established. How to address that with a new regulatory framework, I will leave unsaid. An investigation should, in that case, examine it.

There are many reports that people, not least at the Swedish Migration Agency, distribute or sell work permits and other things. I therefore believe that we can extend this official responsibility to include more people. I think we have an inadequate regulatory framework today, and I think we should align ourselves more with, for example, our Nordic neighbors, who have a slightly stricter regulatory framework. We have different starting points here, but I thank you for the question.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! A well-functioning public administration, free from corruption and with high public confidence, is important for the trust in our system of government. Sweden has a long tradition of efficient and irreproachable administration. It goes back to statesmen such as Axel Oxenstierna and Karl XI and a Riksdag that wanted to have control over the administration and already in 1809 established JO. As we know, the JO office is also a successful Swedish export product.

We Social Democrats have a reservation together with the Green Party that an investigation should be commissioned to see what measures can be taken to combat undue influence and corruption. The need for this is underscored by the fact that the National Audit Office makes the assessment that the authorities' work against corruption is moving forward but that it is moving far too slowly. The National Audit Office makes the assessment that the authorities need clearer guidance from the government in this matter. This is particularly important when it comes to combating organized crime.

Even though work is underway, we believe that further measures are needed. If public trust in the public administration is undermined, it leads to the trust in our democratic system of government also being undermined. We therefore move for approval of reservation 2.

Per-Arne Håkansson from the Socialdemokraterna has in a motion proposed a review of the rules for the accessibility and service of authorities and companies on the telephone. Digitalization has led to many operations primarily referring to digital service, which in large part has led to better service from authorities and companies. But I do not believe I am alone in having ended up in a telephone queue, been told "You are number 542 in the queue" and after some hours given up the ambition to get through. Since there is a digital exclusion where some people do not have the ability to turn to authorities and companies digitally, the trust for these operations is undermined heavily. It must be taken seriously.

An important part of the state's ability to govern the country, for example in a crisis, is the county administrative boards. It is important that they have sufficient resources to be able to fulfill their important mission. It would also be good if other state agencies in their regulatory letters received a mission that corresponds to the county administrative boards' mission to coordinate the state in the county. It is, as it were, good if those who are to cooperate have the same mission – namely, to cooperate.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrik Nilsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Integrity, diligence, skill and drive – these were the qualities that were supposed to characterize the government, as stated in the Instrument of Government of 1809. I also believe that these are qualities that characterize a very Swedish hero. I am thinking of the civil servant. You will remember him – the one who, with precisely competence, ability, impartiality and a criminal loyalty to his mandate, drove the activities of the state forward. The state's cake is small but secure, they used to say. It was a reliable and safe piece.

I believe that these expectations and the values that the officials personified also apply today. Today, we may perhaps be talking about the administration instead, and instead of "officials" we may be talking about "civil servants". But the expectations we as citizens have of the institutions we encounter are precisely the same.

In this, everything comes in, from the question of what responsibility we demand to the fact that we sometimes must be a bit self-critical. There are many examples where people have stated that they have not received a correct treatment, but sometimes it is perhaps the case that we at a political level have not been clear enough about what is to be implemented. We have not been clear enough with the priorities but instead pushed a difficult question onto the official, or the civil servant, or the authority - yes, you can continue yourselves.

I wanted to say this as an introduction, because here we have a package of motions from the general motion period to be processed and handled. There is a breadth in the motions, Madam Speaker; they range from promoting democracy to how one should spell a capital's name. It is high and low, but let me take up some motions that I nevertheless think describe the principle that should guide the handling of this.

We have, for example, a proposal that citizenship should be a requirement to be able to hold a state employment. Well, is it not the case that the most important thing is still precisely this matter of ability and competence? Is it not the case that Axel Oxenstierna's idea of a merit-based administration still applies? One might also consider the question of loyalty, but one cannot categorically say A or B.

There are proposals for measures against corruption. I do not think anyone intends to stand here and defend corruption, but work is already ongoing today - not because the motions have been raised, but because it has been realized, at all levels, that the work against corruption must be carried out and that it must be carried out systematically. It is good that the issue is being highlighted, but approving such a motion might not immediately yield the expected result.

When it comes to the protection of decision-makers, we already have an investigation underway. There are also many proposals concerning how the authorities should be organized, about the internal life of the authorities, or what can be done to improve information. I believe all these questions are better handled by those who are active in the operations – by the authorities, the officials, or the civil servants.

Thus, I am somewhat back to the hero I started with, that is to say, the civil servant and the values the civil servant stood for. When our public administration is predictable and we citizens know what we can expect – even if it is to get through on the phone or receive an answer within a certain time, which there are also proposals for in the report – it is possible for all citizens to begin daring to do things, be creative and take initiative.

Madam Speaker! The hero, that is, the civil servant or the administration, the order—that is, the impartiality—and the objective handling is actually a very large part of the foundation for the prosperity we have in Sweden. With predictability and reliability, one dares to take initiative. Therefore, it is this principle that should also guide the handling of the motions. Read them, take them in, and note what is proposed—but also let the development be predictable by seeing this in a larger context!

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal in Report No. 8 Public Administration.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 4, even though I could agree with much of what previous speakers have said regarding the public administration and the importance of extraordinarily skilled civil servants who safeguard the state's core values and who we know are impartial, objective decision-makers who are not corrupt. Other examples were also given by previous speakers that I do not need to go into.

It is this that distinguishes the public administration from that which is not public. The public sector does not need to be managed like a company. There are differences in what we as citizens and residents in this country can expect from the public administration. We must be able to trust and know that the expectations we may have, we also have the right to have fulfilled. We must know that if we are affected by crime, the police will come, if we are affected by unemployment we get help from Arbetsförmedlingen to find a new job, and if we become ill we can easily report this to Försäkringskassan and receive compensation shortly so that we avoid falling into debt.

If things were to go wrong, if we were not met with a correct response, we also have the possibility that Hans Ekström, I believe, was touching upon, namely to lodge a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman and have our case reviewed.

The State has taken certain measures so that we in Sweden shall receive this correct treatment. Among other things, the Government Offices has developed an introductory training aimed at newly employed persons in the State to strengthen their ability to handle the role as a civil servant or state employee. The training is based on the State's value base, which is summarized in the six principles of democracy, legality, objectivity, freedom of opinion, respect, as well as efficiency and service. It is these principles that set the framework for work in the State and which one must adhere to – i.e., to act factually and impartially, promote a free and open debate and treat all people with respect, while simultaneously managing the State's resources and being efficient and accessible.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, there is also in Sweden a class society that has color and gender and which has consequences in all aspects of life - where you can find a home, what jobs you can get and at what salary, what your state of health is and how safe you can feel in the public space. With current policy, unfortunately, these differences are also being reinforced. The gaps are widening, which is evident from the beginning of life to its end.

Madam Speaker! Racism is a poison in our society that one must take a major holistic approach to in order to combat. Sweden has never been a homogeneous and conflict-free society. On the contrary, the Swedish welfare model has been forged through struggle and contradictions in the workers', women's, disability, and minority movements' strive for freedom and justice to encompass us all.

There should be a common insight among all the parties in the Riksdag that we must take political responsibility for how we describe the community in Sweden and how we create opportunities for all people living here to be a part of it. Sweden, as well as Europe, is characterized by a structural and institutional racism that requires clear, concrete, and targeted measures. We live in the same country, but we live under different conditions. It matters what name one has, what skin color one has, and where one was born. It is totally unacceptable when it comes to public administration - obviously when it comes to everything else too, but it is public administration we are debating here.

Madam Speaker! Repeatedly, many in our country testify about how they are subjected to racism and hate crimes in public. In my previous assignment in Västra Götalandsregionen, I had the opportunity to meet representatives from a Roma association. They testified - and I think it is a telling example - that knowledge of several languages, which in normal cases would be a merit, for them instead was something that one was told not to include in one's CV, for example that one could speak Romani chib. It would create fewer opportunities to get a job. It is a problem when the public sector urges residents to hide a part of their identity.

In our society, Sami people testify to hate crimes and Jews to antisemitism. We know that well-educated individuals are subjected to afrophobia and do not get the jobs that majority Swedes with similar education get. We have widespread antigypsyism. All these factors must be addressed with an anti-racist policy that sees and hears this and wants to do something about it. Instead, we have today a government that fuels the racism that exists in society and presents proposals that in different ways aim to further divide society, preferably through arbitrariness and by pointing out certain groups.

The previous government took initiatives to counter racism in society. Among other things, it decided in 2016 on Sweden's first plan against racism and hate crimes. In 2020, the government announced further initiatives, including in the work against racism in the labor market with a special focus on afrophobia and knowledge of how Romani children and young people are subjected to anti-Gypsyism. We also have a Sámi truth commission, whose work is ongoing right now, to increase knowledge across the entire country about the abuses that Sámi people have been subjected to throughout history.

Madam Speaker! The Government Offices has assessed that the national plan against racism in its current form is a weak strategy. It has no concrete goals for what the work against racism is intended to lead to. Instead, the agencies' work takes place in delimited assignments that are not integrated into the regular operations. There is also no list of which agencies the plan actually concerns.

Overall, the Government Offices has judged that the government needs to strengthen and clarify the work on the national plan so that it becomes more purposeful and long-term. Despite this, the government has so far not taken any proper measures.

It can be done differently. That is why Vänsterpartiet has submitted a motion that the government must take many more measures in the work against racism in public activities and also investigate it on the structural level and take a holistic approach. That is also why I move for approval of reservation 4.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! This report touches upon a number of important issues that have been gathered under the heading Public Administration. I will not comment on all of them but will nevertheless mention some of them.

We are heading towards an election to the European Parliament in three months and two days. One of the sections in the report concerns precisely voter turnout. Unfortunately, the turnout has decreased slightly in the most recent elections. Furthermore, there are still differences in participation between different groups in the population and, above all, between different constituencies. We heard on the radio this morning that very few of the parties' lead candidates are known by the voters three months before the election. It is alarming, but it is actually primarily about the parties' ability to bring their candidates to the public's attention.

A responsibility for the public is that the electoral system itself is accessible to all citizens who are eligible to vote. It is important for maintaining trust in our democratic society that all groups feel that their vote plays some role, that they can participate and influence existence through the party they choose to cast their vote for.

Therefore, voter turnout needs to increase among young people, foreign-born persons, and persons with disabilities - groups that have lower voter turnout than the average. Particularly low is the voter turnout in areas with socioeconomic challenges. The Government has allocated funds to promote voter turnout in the 2024 European Parliament election.

An agreement within the democracy area with Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner, SKR, has also contributed to strengthening municipalities' and regions' work to promote civic participation in democratic processes and to increasing elected officials' knowledge of the democratic mandate.

Disability policy is another important area in this county. People with disabilities belong to the groups that have lower voter turnout than others. But this also applies in other parts of social life.

In accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, there is a national goal of equal living conditions and full participation for persons with disabilities. Unfortunately, this is not the case when it comes to the ballot system.

The government decided as recently as February this year to let a parliamentarily composed committee evaluate and consider changes to the ballot system. The committee shall, among other things, analyze and assess how common or neutral ballots would affect the conditions for, among others, persons with disabilities, for example visual impairments, to participate in the elections on equal terms. It is important for democratic participation to be as large as possible. Unfortunately, there is no time to put forward any proposals that can be implemented already for this summer's EU election, but we have hopes for the future.

Mr. Speaker! The goal of the state administration policy is an innovative and collaborative state administration that is legally secure and efficient, has well-developed quality, service and accessibility, and thereby contributes to Sweden's development and an effective EU work.

Human rights and the principle of non-discrimination are important starting points for the public administration, as previous speakers have pointed out. Government employees shall have knowledge of these fundamental values so that citizens shall have confidence in and trust in those who work within the Swedish administration. The authorities are required to fulfill their tasks in accordance with the decisions that have been made by the Riksdag and the government, and they shall make correct decisions on the basis of our laws and other regulations.

It is important for several reasons to maintain and strengthen the administration's work with a public ethos. This involves, among other things, that the interaction with the public in all situations shall be characterized by dignity and respect and that there shall be a readiness at every agency to be able to handle ethical issues. This includes, among other things, developing the employees' ethical attitudes. This can, for example, mean that the state as an employer needs to safeguard such working conditions so that the civil servant's integrity and independence are taken into account and encouraged.

Some previous speakers have touched upon the six principles that shall characterize work within the state administration: democracy, legality, objectivity, free formation of opinion, respect, as well as efficiency and service. These are frameworks for work within the state that state employees shall adhere to. It is interesting that Statskontoret has developed a training for state employees in the underlying values.

The work against corruption has also been mentioned here earlier. It is incredibly important, because corruption undermines the fundamental democratic values such as equal treatment and so on. It is alarming that organized crime has found its way into and infiltrated public administration. Therefore, we welcome the measures that the government is taking to address this by, in the near future, appointing an investigation that shall expeditiously review expanded possibilities for register control.

Since time is running out, I will not repeat too much of what I or others have said here earlier. I just want to add that the work against corruption naturally also includes the work against corruption crimes in the EU area.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, the 50th anniversary of the 1974 Instrument of Government was celebrated here in the Riksdag. It was a dignified and well-attended celebration. Above all, we were able to take part in a very fine and useful program with rewarding lectures and discussions regarding the content of the Instrument of Government and how it has developed and been interpreted over time.

Today we are debating the report Public Administration. It is an important area to examine to ensure that the principle of legal certainty and equality before the law is upheld and permeates the exercise of public power, as well as that authorities work effectively with the citizens' best interests in mind.

One of the topics that was presented and discussed at yesterday's 50th anniversary celebration was precisely the public administration. It is an area that is regulated in our Instrument of Government, albeit rather clumsily, as was noted. A total of nine paragraphs in our constitution are apparently to regulate the public administration.

Yesterday's seminar raised thoughts, at least for me, about whether there might be reason to review if we need to further regulate our administration in order for its independence and professionalism to be protected.

A characteristic of our administrative authorities is that they are independent and that they are autonomous in their decision-making. At the same time, officials must observe objectivity and impartiality, that is, to be professional. It is important for everyone's legal certainty. The official is a guardian of democracy, as was said yesterday.

Mr. Speaker! Today, nearly one and a half million Swedes work within the public administration. They range from police officers in field service, social secretaries in our municipalities, and lecturers who teach at universities, to civil servants within the Government Offices. There are many who serve our citizens in public employment. And it is we in this chamber, as well as in municipal and regional assemblies, who actually provide the conditions for their jobs. It is also we who must be held accountable if the conditions provided are not the right ones.

Another side of the coin is what responsibility can be demanded of the person who, within the scope of their public employment, commits errors; in other words, how we best ensure that those who work in the public sector actually follow the laws and regulations that apply. There have for a long time been several types of sanctions against the official who makes mistakes. The person who disregards what applies for the employment can, for example, be warned by the employer, receive a salary deduction, be suspended, or even lose their job. There is also a criminal responsibility, which Lars Andersson and I previously debated, where it is possible to prosecute and convict an official for official misconduct.

Mr. Speaker! People sometimes talk about reintroducing official responsibility. I want to react against this, because we already have an official responsibility today. The expansion of criminal official responsibility was investigated a couple of years ago, and it is on the table again. With my background as a prosecutor, I must turn a bit against the belief that everything that can go wrong should be regulated through criminal provisions. There is an over-reliance on the idea that we should be given opportunities to prosecute and convict people for what we should be addressing. It can become a bit crazy.

For someone to be prosecuted and convicted of a crime, it requires, as I touched upon in my exchange with Lars Andersson, a very clear regulatory framework - otherwise, we have no legally secure legislation. This is important to remember when we discuss a potential expanded official liability.

It is becoming increasingly common with threats and harassment against public officials in an attempt to influence them in their decision-making. This applies not only to police officers in outer service who encounter gangs on the street but also to many other public officials, not least social workers. It has emerged in several investigations that precisely this group of officials all too often is subjected to hate, threats, and attempts at influence in an unacceptable manner.

I want to emphasize that the current social climate already makes it tough enough for public officials to make offensive but necessary decisions. This could, for example, concern a decision to take a child into care. If the fear of making a mistake becomes greater than the will to do right, it risks paralyzing decision-making. To then expand the criminal liability for a very large group of – often hard-working – public employees is not the right way to go, I believe.

Mr. Speaker! A vibrant and strong democracy presupposes that all citizens can be involved based on their own circumstances. Everyone must have actual opportunities to take part in and personally participate in democratic processes. For people with different types of disabilities, there are challenges here, and therefore we need to be attentive and ensure that there are adapted solutions that actually work.

Centerpartiet believes that we must ensure that our authorities work actively to increase the opportunities for democratic participation for persons with disabilities. Part of this work is to ensure that they are given the opportunity to participate in general elections on the same terms as everyone else and in such a way that the secrecy of the vote can be guaranteed. We need to do more to ensure that all polling stations are adapted for persons with disabilities.

It is important to point out, especially now when we are soon going to an election again – the election to the European Parliament is held on June 9. The Centre Party considers that the government should ensure that Sweden's authorities develop the work of offering information in easy-to-read Swedish before the election and also offer easily accessible information for persons with visual and hearing impairments.

For us, it is also important that all premises where democracy is practiced, for example meeting rooms for committee meetings, are fully accessible. Therefore, I would like to conclude by moving for approval of reservation 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Danielsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! What would Sweden be without a well-functioning public administration? Without a well-functioning public administration, society would probably be very different from how it is today and be both less organized and less efficient.

It is the public administration that provides the organization that ensures that healthcare, schools, the justice system, and other important parts of our daily lives function. It is also the public administration that ensures that the decisions made in here actually take effect. Public administration plays a central role in creating and maintaining a stable and well-functioning democracy.

But there are also examples of the public administration being perceived as bureaucratic and complicated by our residents, and that the laws we in this house make decisions on in practice become administratively heavy and sometimes unnecessarily complicated when they are to be applied. Let me give an example, Mr. Speaker.

A man I met a while ago - we can call him Hasse - uses a wheelchair to get around. He drives a car to work, and in order for him to be able to do that, his car needs to be adapted so that he can sit in a wheelchair.

Now Hasse has bought a new car, and that also needs to be adapted for it to work. He needs to apply for car support again. In order for him to receive car support, Hasse requires a medical certificate stating that he is allowed to drive a car, even though he has driven a car for very many years and has a driver's license.

It must be easy for individuals to do the right thing, and we must become better at counteracting unnecessary administration and bureaucracy.

Yesterday, we solemnly observed here in the Riksdag that the Instrument of Government from 1974 now turns 50 years old. During the commemoration, several researchers spoke about the developments they have seen over the last 50 years, including regarding public administration. Something that was called for was a stronger ethos for Swedish administration and that one, as a state or municipal official, can more clearly flag when laws and regulations create situations such as the one I previously described, which can lead to diminished trust in the public administration. I believe that we need to reflect further in this direction.

Mr. Speaker! I welcome the focus on accessibility and disability rights that is present in this year's report. A particularly important issue is the accessibility for persons with disabilities when it comes to exercising their right to vote. For example, persons with visual impairments must be guaranteed to be able to vote in secret even in personal votes.

There is something called universal design. It simply means doing it right from the beginning. The government has recently appointed an inquiry to review the ballot system, and the directives to the inquiry include the question of accessible ballots. That is very good, because if we do it right from the beginning, we do not need to adapt it afterwards.

Last year we celebrated 100 years of democracy. By this is meant that Sweden received universal and equal suffrage, especially for women, about 100 years ago. The fact is, however, that it was not until 1989 that people with intellectual disabilities also received full suffrage. That was because it was then that one could no longer be declared incompetent.

In order for persons with intellectual disabilities to have reasonable conditions to access election information, measures are needed. There are several good examples of how this can be solved, not least with the help of civil society. One such example is the "Mitt val" education, which is aimed at persons with intellectual disabilities and aims to provide easy-to-understand information about the election. The experience from the 2018 election is that over 80 percent of those who participated in Mitt val before the election went and voted. It is an incredibly great success, as voter turnout is particularly low in this group.

Examples of elements in the training are that representatives of the parties are invited to a political discussion where they are asked to answer questions from the participants. Prior to the conversation, the politicians have received training in "plain language" so that they can make themselves understandable. In this way, language barriers are lowered.

It is of utmost importance that municipalities and others continue to carry out these types of interventions and trainings so that we can seriously speak of having a universal and equal suffrage.

Mr. Speaker! In a debate like this, it is easy for us to focus on what we would like to change and on what does not function as well as we would wish. It is not so strange – a well-functioning public administration is important for a well-functioning democracy. We do, however, need to remind ourselves that Sweden's public administration in general functions very well.

The other day, Medieakademien's measurement was released, where we see that institutions such as the police, the Swedish Tax Agency, and healthcare enjoy high trust among the Swedish people. This shows that the Swedish administration functions well, even though there is also potential for development there.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I want to mention that I only intend to make a few observations in the grand landscape contained within the concept of public administration. I naturally join the chorus of various forms of praise for our administration and for all the fantastic civil servants who are there. What I intended to say something about concerns partly accessibility in general and the Statens servicecenter in particular, and partly corruption.

The Administrative Procedure Act states that authorities shall be accessible for contact with individuals and that authorities shall also ensure that such contacts can take place in a simple and smooth manner. It may look like I am trying - if the expression is permitted - to open doors, but I think there are still reasons to highlight some aspects of the fundamentally self-evident requirements for accessibility, regardless of where one lives.

For the resident who is not confident with or has no possibility of using digital services, the public service is not equivalent but depends largely on where in the country one lives. In rural areas, one may need to travel for several hours by car for a simple errand. Here, the state service centers play an important role and need to be established in more places in the country.

One possibility is, of course, to facilitate cooperation between different state actors in order to thereby be able to have a presence in more, or even many more, locations than before. This work to strengthen local cooperation between agencies was intensified under the previous government with Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna. More so-called service offices were established and coordinated under Statens servicecenter.

Even during 2023, new service offices were established both in rural areas, in smaller towns, and in vulnerable areas. And just under two weeks ago, service office number 142 was opened, this time in Askersund. There are therefore nearly 150 such offices around the country, where one can receive service of a simpler nature from authorities such as Försäkringskassan and Arbetsförmedlingen. This work should continue, and the government should take initiative so that this shall happen.

The National Audit Office has audited the state service centers under the auspices of Statens servicecenter and submitted a report nearly a year ago, in April 2023, with recommendations for the continued work of developing the operations.

Mr. Speaker! Dignity and justice must be secured. During the consideration of the government's communication regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's audit of the state service offices, the KU stated in agreement that it is important not only to look at cost and efficiency in these decisions; the committee maintained that it also concerns other considerations such as rural perspectives, accessibility, and justice.

Therefore, the state service centers that have been established must function well and meet the expectations that the citizens have of the service offered. Accessibility must increase, and the personal privacy in the local offices must be able to be guaranteed.

Mr. Speaker! One of the green movement's most important missions is to defend democracy and human rights. Miljöpartiet de gröna uphold the principles of the rule of law, which, as is well known, include among other things equality before the law for all, an independent judiciary, freedom from corruption and undue influence, as well as individual and constitutionally protected civil rights such as freedom of expression and the press, freedom of association, and protection against discrimination.

One of the previous government's inquiries into improper influence was discontinued by the current government, referring partly to ongoing work on a directive within the EU, and partly to requests to include issues regarding civil servant responsibility and a potential tightening of the possibilities for accountability.

The European Commission submitted a proposal in the spring of 2023 to strengthen the fight against corruption within the Union. Among other things, stricter rules that criminalize corruption, a broader view of what constitutes a corruption offense, and a harmonization of the penalties within the Union are proposed.

The Commission shall also actively help Member States to introduce powerful strategies and legislation against corruption. In a message from the Commission, it is stated that an EU network against corruption shall bring together law enforcement agencies and other authorities with actors in the fight against corruption, such as representatives of civil society.

At the beginning of February this year, directives were published for the government's new investigation into corruption and – as has been announced and discussed here – the extended official responsibility, entirely in accordance with the intentions in the Tidö Agreement.

Even though we welcome the investigation directives in the part concerning corruption offenses, I want to express a concern that the focus will fall more on employed officials than on elected representatives. This is admittedly a world with significant gray areas, but that corruption or improper influence is also directed towards elected representatives, there seem to be no doubts about, just as organized crime is thereby attempting to gain influence over our welfare sector.

It is my hope that the broad scope that characterized the 2022 directive, that is, to the concluded investigation, will also contribute to shaping the 2024 investigation.

With that said, I would like to move for approval of reservation 2.

Public administration

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 10.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)